, Volume 136, Issue 2, pp 289–295

The relative impacts of native and introduced predatory fish on a temporary wetland tadpole assemblage

Community Ecology


Understanding the relative impacts of predators on prey may improve the ability to predict the effects of predator composition changes on prey assemblages. We experimentally examined the relative impact of native and introduced predatory fish on a temporary wetland amphibian assemblage to determine whether these predators exert distinct (unique or non-substitutable) or equivalent (similar) impacts on prey. Predatory fish included the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), golden topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus), flagfish (Jordanella floridae), and the introduced walking catfish (Clarias batrachus). The tadpole assemblage included four common species known to co-occur in temporary wetlands in south-central Florida, USA: the oak toad (Bufo quercicus), pinewoods treefrog (Hyla femoralis), squirrel treefrog (Hyla squirella), and eastern narrowmouth toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis). Tadpoles were exposed to different predators in wading pools under conditions similar to those found in surrounding temporary wetlands (particularly in terms of substrate type, the degree of habitat complexity, and temperature). Native predators were similar with respect to predation rate and prey selectivity, suggesting similar energy requirements and foraging behavior. Conversely, native fish predators, especially G. holbrooki, were distinct from the introduced C. batrachus. In contrast to expectations, C. batrachus were less voracious predators than native fish, particularly G. holbrooki. Moreover, survival of G. carolinensis and H. femoralis were higher in the presence of C. batrachus than G. holbrooki. We suggest that C. batrachus was a less efficient predator than native fish because the foraging behavior of this species resulted in low predator-prey encounter rates, and thus predation rate. In combination with a related field study, our results suggest that native predatory fish play a stronger role than C. batrachus in influencing the spatial distribution and abundance of temporary wetland amphibians in the landscape.


Fish assemblages Functional relationships Larval anurans Predation Temporary wetlands 


  1. Babbitt, KJ, Tanner GW (1998) Effects of cover and predator size on survival and development of Rana utricularia tadpoles. Oecologia 114:258–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babbitt KJ, Tanner GW (2000) Use of temporary wetlands by anurans in a hydrologically modified landscape. Wetlands 20:313–322Google Scholar
  3. Baber MJ (2001) Understanding anuran community structure in temporary wetlands: the interaction and importance of landscape and biotic processes. PhD Dissertation, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Baber MJ, Childers DL, Babbitt KJ, Anderson DL (2002) Controls on the distribution and abundance of fish in temporary wetlands. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 59:441–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blouin MS (1990) Evolution of palatability differences between closely related treefrogs. J Herpetol 24:309–311Google Scholar
  6. Bradford DF (1989) Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada lakes of California: Implications of the negative effect of fish introductions. Copeia 1989:775–778Google Scholar
  7. Bradford DF, Tabatabai F, Graber DM (1993) Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana mucosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California. Cons Biol 7:882–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caldwell JP (1982) Disruptive selection: a tail color polymorphism in Acris tadpoles in response to differential predation. Can J Zool 60:2818–2827Google Scholar
  9. Courtenay WR Jr, Sahlman HF, Miley II WW, Herrema DJ (1974) Exotic fishes in fresh and brackish waters of Florida. Biol Cons 6:292–302Google Scholar
  10. Ebenman BL, Persson L (1988) Size structured populations. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Ecklöv P, Werner EE (2000) Multiple predator effects on size-dependent behavior and mortality of two species of anuran larvae. Oikos 88:250–258Google Scholar
  12. Fellers GM, Drost CA (1993) Disappearance of the cascades frog (Rana cascade) at the southern end of its range, California, USA. Biol Cons 65:177–181Google Scholar
  13. Formanowicz DR Jr, Brodie ED Jr (1982) Relative palatabilities of members of a larval amphibian community. Copeia 1982:91–97Google Scholar
  14. Gamradt SC, Kats LB (1996) Effect of introduced crayfish and mosquitofish on California newts. Cons Biol 9:1155–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodsell JA, Kats LB (1999) Effect of introduced mosquitofish on Pacific treefrogs and the role of alternative prey. Cons Biol 13:921–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gosner KL (1960) A simplified table for staging anuran embryos and larvae with notes on identification. Herpetologica 16:183–190Google Scholar
  17. Harris PM (1995) Are autoecologically similar species also functionally similar? A test in pond communities. Ecology 76:544–552Google Scholar
  18. Hart R, Newman JR (1995) The importance of isolated wetlands to fish and wildlife in Florida: Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, Nongame Wildlife Program. Project Report. NG 88–102Google Scholar
  19. Knapp RA, Matthews KR (2000) Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Cons Biol 14:428–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kurzava LM, Morin PJ (1998) Tests of functional equivalence: complementary roles of salamanders and fish in community organization. Ecology 79:477–489Google Scholar
  21. Lawler SP, Dritz D, Strange T, Holyoak M (1999) Effects of introduced mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the threatened California red-legged frog. Cons Biol 13:613–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawton JH, Brown VK (1993) Redundancy in ecosystems. In: Schultze ED, Mooney HA (eds) Biodiversity and ecosystem function. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 255–270Google Scholar
  23. Lima SL, Dill LW (1990) Behavioral decisions made under the risk of predation: a review and prospectus. Can J Zool 68:619–640Google Scholar
  24. Morin PJ (1995) Functional redundancy, non-additive interactions, and supply-side dynamics in experimental pond communities. Ecology 76:133–149Google Scholar
  25. Morrison DF (1976) Multivariate statistical methods, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Moyle PB, Cech JJ Jr (2000) Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Pacala S, Roughgarden J (1982) Resource partitioning and interspecific competition in two-species of insular Anolis lizard communities. Science 217:444–446Google Scholar
  28. Pearman PB (1993) Effects of habitat size on tadpole populations. Ecology 74:1982–1991Google Scholar
  29. Persson LS, Diehl L, Johansson G, Andersson G, Hamrin SF (1991) The succession of fish communities along the productivity gradient of temperate lakes-patterns and the importance of size-structured interactions. J Fish Biol 38:281–293Google Scholar
  30. Peterson JE, Cornwell JC, Kemp WM (1999) Implicit scaling in the design of experimental ecosystems. Oikos 85:3–18Google Scholar
  31. Power ME (1984) Depth distributions of armored catfish predator-induced resource avoidance. Ecology 65:523–528Google Scholar
  32. Richards SJ, Bull CM (1990) Size-limited predation on tadpoles of three Australian frogs. Copeia 1990:1041–1046Google Scholar
  33. Saint JN, Harvey HH, Jackson DA (2000) Selective foraging in the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) Can J Zool 78:1320–1331Google Scholar
  34. Sih A (1992) Integrative approaches to the study of predation: general thoughts and a case study on sunfish and salamander larvae. Ann Zool Fenn 29:183–198Google Scholar
  35. Sih A, Englund G, Wooster D (1998) Emergent impacts of multiple predators on prey. Trends Ecol Evol 13:350–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith GR, Rettig JE, Mittelbach GG, Valiulis JL, Schaak SR (1999) The effects of fish on assemblages of amphibians in ponds: a field experiment. Freshw Biol 41:829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SPSS (2002) SYSTAT 11.0 SPSS, Chicago, Ill., USAGoogle Scholar
  38. Tonn WM, Paszkowski CA, Holopainen IJ (1991) Piscivory and recruitment – mechanisms structuring prey populations in small lakes. Ecology 73:951–958Google Scholar
  39. Travis J, Keen WH, Juilianna J (1985) The role of relative body size in a predator-prey relationship between dragonfly naiads and larval anurans. Oikos 45:59–65Google Scholar
  40. Wang N, Appenzeller A (1998) Abundance, depth distribution, diet composition and growth of perch (Perca fluviatilis) and burbot (Lota lota) larvae and juveniles in the pelagic zone of Lake Constance. Ecol Freshw Fish 7:176–183Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of Natural ResourcesUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations